“Tibeb has been trying to call you,” Teme tells me. She’s one of my Monitoring and Evaluation officers and is running a mission about two days south of the capital, checking on an emergency food program. “She is wanting to stay in the field to complete her work until the 31st. But the driver has only been authorized to be out until the 29th.”

Teme explains that when the request was put to fleet management, a mistake was made on the driver request form and the earlier date entered. So I guess there’s some issue with fleet management wanting the vehicle and driver back. It wouldn’t be the first time that there are hiccups between what my field staff want, and getting the resources from the shared services guys.

I go down the two flights of stairs to have a chat to Girma, the fleet manager. I’ve never seen anyone so consistently smiley as Girma, and he greets me warmly. Although we’ve had issues in mobilizing vehicles at times, I know he’s dedicated to finding fixes and he has always been reasonable when I’ve discussed with him.

“The problem,” he tells me, “Is that on the form, she only asked for the driver until the 29th. So now she wants the driver until the 31st. But the driver only took out per diem until the 29th, not the 31st, so he won’t stay longer.”

I frown. “So have him stay out, and he can be reimbursed for the two extra days.”

The per diem rate clocks in at a little under ten bucks a day for that location. I’m confident that between them, the team are going to ensure that the driver doesn’t starve.

“I know. I said that to finance. But they say it’s against policy. It creates all kinds of problems. They say if he comes back and tries to claim per diem after the fact that he can’t be reimbursed.”

I raise an eyebrow. Creates all kinds of problems? We’re an organization that measures its in-country budget in multiples of ten million dollars annually. I don’t see how $17 constitutes all kinds of problems.

“He’s out doing work,” I say. “Of course we’re going to reimburse him. There’s no question about that. If finance are going to push the matter I’ll pay the per diem out of my own pocket.”

Girma grins his habitual smile. “I know. But finance.”

Girma and I walk down the hallway to finance. He shows me to the desk of the particular finance officer responsible for this edict. He starts to re-hash the conversation the to of them had earlier. I don’t let him get all the way through.

“We will reimburse him,” I say to the finance officer, directly, in a voice that indicates I’m not asking for his permission.

He doesn’t put up any real resistance. “Well, you’ll need to sign his acquittal form.”

“Yes.”

“Will you be around next week to sign it?”

“Yes.”

“Okay.”

And that’s quite literally all it took.

It’s troubleshooting little things like this (as well as much bigger things) that fills time out here. It’s not difficult. But in an organizational culture where the drive for compliance and the tyranny of petty systems takes precednence over ensuring our project work goes ahead, it’s a constant tussle. Without my intervention (and in a society like this where rank trumps protocol, all I really need to do is show up and give my verbal instruction), a systems-compliant finance officer would have cut short the work being done by my field-team actually engaging at the community level and trying to improve the quality of the work we do. By simply standing at his desk and saying that I’d approve an exception to policy- what ridiculous policy I’m excepting I’m not entirely clear- the problem is solved.

This little story- which took place this morning- is a microcosm for many of the challenges we face trying to ensure our field operations keep rolling. Without constant- constant– attention, the procedural requirements, paperwork and red-tape rapidly grind activities to a halt. In many ways, I have no particular skillset that isn’t greatly outweighed by the experience and ability of my field teams, in terms of actually providing assistance to the communities we work with. I see my main role here as making sure that the systems work to support my staff, not get in their way. And then I get out of their way as well.

This compliance culture is nobody’s fault, per se. It’s a culture common to many INGOs and, I don’t doubt, a plethora of other organizations as well. In fact, I understand that government offices generally have it much worse. And to be honest, I’m lucky enough to be working in an organization where I have a Country Director who backs me up, so I can be confident of stepping into a situation like this one (or, more importantly, one where we’re trying to push through high-level organizational change to improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and impact of our field operations on a much larger scale), and when I tell staff to move the red tape out of the way, I know it’ll happen.

Sometimes after some negotiation…

It is, of course, a fine balance. On the one hand, administrative systems were designed to increase transparency and limit corruption. Driven first by donors, it is now increasingly pushed by the risk-averse inertia of organizations themselves, who are terrified of being publically caught out with inadequate systemic controls, fearful of the loss of donor funding that would presumably follow. Large government donors, with increasing layers of demands, don’t make this any easier either. Sadly, what we end up with is a wag-the-dog scenario where we end up putting so much emphasis on the controls that it becomes unwieldy to operate.

Aid organizations have a responsibility to seek a balance- ensuring appropriate accountability while maximising the speed and quality of field work. Donors, too, need to recognize that the more demands they place on implementing agencies- heavy reporting and fiscal requirements and micromanagement of tasks and activities- the more this can be detrimental to the communities we all exist to serve.

My heart is in operations. Helping stuff happen. Which is why I love this job. I get to push things out of the way, try to ensure a reasonable measure of accountability, but free up my teams to go do what they’re supposed to do and deliver our programs on the ground.

Of course, it’s also why I hate this industry sometimes. Because I watch, first hand, as administrative procedures delay funding and operations, occupy time and effort, and ultimately bog down our work until it becomes less efficient. And communities don’t get the services they’re owed.

Today, though, I’m just pleased I won’t be seeing Tibeb back until after the weekend.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Posts navigation

2 comments on “Troubleshooting”

I totally understand the picture of what transpired :-). This happens all the time in the course of our work. I am one of the support services people and compliance means a great deal to me. It is a nightmare to have any type of logistics disruptions or what is then perceived as irregularities in paperwork. What just happened could have thrown everything out of sync. What if someone else was already penciled down for a field visit using that same vehicle for 29th or 30th? Then implementation is also disrupted. Plus there’s the “things do not match” mentality; the home office gives you hell when finance documents eventually get to them at the end of the month, or auditors ask you questions about approvals and variances between paperwork and monies paid out, and then submit a report stating basically that you have failed at your job 🙂 You then spend a great deal of time and energy writing justifications for past activities and vouchers. We always say we need integrity and transparency in our processes, this is what happens when charities or nonprofits become large. Sometimes the red tape can make things extremely slow, but when one works in an environment without systems, or where technical people have zero planning skills and pull things out without respect for procedures and notice, one becomes more than appreciative of a system like yours.

Thanks for your message and I totally agree with you- admin systems and compliance mechanisms are absolutely critical and necessary. I have a lot of respect for normal procurement and financial systems, and am also totally in support of coordinated service guidelines like fleet management and so forth- they are critical to keeping an organization running fluidly, and in protecting both staff and assets from abuse. Where I see the need is to strive hard to find a middle road where agencies aren’t being constrained or driven by admin/compliance requirements- or at least, not unreasonable ones. This has partly got to come from donors who just need to chill out a little (EU, I’m looking at you), and also agencies themselves, who end up having some CRAZY policies written down that make no sense. Like, in my opinion, a policy that says that a staff member can’t be refunded on their perdiem if they extend their trip after departure (and the issue had nothing to do with the need for the vehicle to be back at head office for other tasks- that I would have understood. It was simply that finance was unwilling to reimburse the perdiem because the dates changed after departure). A lot of my time here is spent working with finance, HR, procurement and admin, finding a middle road on policies and compliance. I’ve been managing grants in various fashions for 10 years now, so I absolutely understand the need and value in all of these systems, and yes, I do appreciate a well-structured working environment. It’s about making sure these systems serve the dual purpose of ensuring the right thing is done, but also facilitating field implementation.

You know, honestly, a lot of this has less to do with the systems themselves, than with the way they are interpreted and implemented- and particularly the attitude of certain ‘gatekeepers’. For example, within the systems we have here, there absolutely is a way that we can extend the driver’s mission and still refund him the perdiem. I’ll sign for the permission, and it’ll be approved, and we’ll be compliant. No dramas. But the attitude of certain types of compliance staff whose initial response is “No it can’t be done” is what often ends up bogging things down. With a bit of creative thinking and a problem-solving, “can-do” attitude, we’re able to make things happen. Sadly, some staff simply don’t see it that way.

We have a great team here, and senior staff in finance and HR, for example, who totally get it, and when I bring a problem of this sort to them (if I can’t initially solve it with junior staff by), they invariably work with me to help find a solution. But as in any organization, you get people who just like exercising their power and shutting you down, and that’s the sort of thing that needs to change.

Anyways- always good to hear from somebody on the support-side of the business. 🙂 You’re most welcome any time, and I appreciate your thoughts and perspective. Have a great day!